Comments on: Obama Fever – Don’t Catch It!

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:47:03 +0000

That’ll be a provocative piece, I’m sure. Let me know when it’s ready.

With so many people just voting without being informed, it does make me wonder. Think of all the people who cast their vote based on race or party affiliation. That’s pretty scary stuff, indeed.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:43:23 +0000

Trog,

Clearly, he chose his username the way you’d expect him to – like a chimp – he plunked his fingers down on the keyboard, and the result perfectly captured his essence.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:01:50 +0000

This does, however, raise a bigger question: How do you think anything gets better when nearly half the people are raving idiots who vote?

I’m writing a piece right now about how Republicans have blown it and continue to blow it such that there are no good alternatives left to consider.

Cheers,

Ted

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:52:40 +0000

I wondered if you would respond, Ted. I do understand your reticence at such an excursion. Salvage operations of this kind are usually doomed from the start, which is why in certain test cases it’s better to just draw your sword and “out with it.” That’s where these discussions go most of the time anyway. Likely your breath would’ve been wasted, since Mytzlphlik’s political orientation requires an interpreter on his/her end, provided, of course, he/she decided to hang out and lurk. On the other hand, if M had no intention of returning (only to purposefully misunderstand anyway), your very salient comments would’ve derived the same way, this time falling on absent ears. I sometimes wonder if, practically speaking, there’s really no difference between a substantive message which was misunderstood and one which was never received because the audience conveniently tuned out. That’s why I say it derives the same way. I’m not sure there is ANY difference.

Anyway, thanks for dropping in and have good one old friend.

By: Troglodad

Troglodad — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:46:34 +0000

Multiplex? Dang, I thought he was a Superman fan- then I remembered it’s Mr. Mxyzptlk I was thinking of.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:50:44 +0000

Chad,

I’m responding to you because of the enormous respect I have for you, and not to the irrelevant and immaterial slop above yours. Ordinarily a comment such as the one Multiplex posted would get him blocked on my blog due to its lack of any meaningful substance. I suspect it’s because he himself is incapable of anything beyond the superficial, that he has no moral grounding, and that, in fact, his entire affinity for Bobo is based solely on feelings and thus he has an end-justifies-the-means mentality.

However, I am not willing to engage in any discussion with him to prove my point. I’ll leave that to others who enjoy making fools of riffraff.

And now that I feel I’ve fulfilled my duty, I must say that parting is such sweet sorrow that… you know the rest.

By: Chad Phillips

Chad Phillips — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:14:46 +0000

If moral relativism were true, M, your “sickness is in the eye of the beholder” statement would be exactly right. If YOU are too foolish to comprehend that, it means your response betrays your belief that enduring principles are, indeed, absolute. Otherwise, you’d display the behavior of a rock, while the world comes apart around you. You wouldn’t even care enough to respond with “moral outrage” to Ted’s piece.

Now that we know you really don’t believe in moral relativism and are thus impaled on your own hypocrisy, I am curious what buttresses your belief that Ted is sick. Is this a philosophical assessment, or are you an M.D.?

By: Mystylplx

Mystylplx — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:21:42 +0000

The sickness is in the eye of the beholder. In case you are too stupid to understand that (duh!) what I mean is that YOU are the sick puppy. Are there people out there who care enough about you to stage an intervention?